Networking and Applying to Radiation Oncology During A Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Survey of Medical Student Concerns

Purpose: We assessed the effectiveness of a virtual networking session tailored for third- and fourth-year medical students interested in radiation oncology, and report students’ concerns about applying to radiation oncology during the pandemic. Methods and Materials: A multi-institutional networking session was hosted on Zoom and included medical students, faculty, and residents from across the country. The breakout room feature was used to divide participants into smaller groups. Participants were randomly shuffled into new groups every 10 to 15 minutes. Students completed pre- and post-session surveys. Results: Among the 134 students who registered, 69 students participated in the session, and 53 students completed a post-session survey. Most students reported the session was valuable or very valuable (79%), and it was easy or very easy to network through the virtual format (66%). After the session, 18 (33.9%) students reported their interest in radiation oncology increased, and 34 (64.2%) reported their interest remained the same. Most students believed COVID-19 (55%) and virtual interviews and platforms (55%) negatively or somewhat negatively affected their ability to select a residency program. Most students (62%) were concerned they will be inaccurately evaluated as an interviewee on a virtual platform. Although 30% agreed or strongly agreed the cost-savings and convenience of virtual interviews outweigh potential downsides, 66% of students were planning to visit cities of interest in person before rank list submission. Conclusions: Medical students reported significant concerns with their ability to be accurately evaluated and to choose among residency programs on a virtual platform. Students found the networking session to be a valuable resource for most students, and programs could continue similar efforts during the residency application cycle to better represent their program while maintaining certain financial and geographic advantages of a virtual environment

Interobserver reliability in describing radiographic lung changes after stereotactic body radiation therapy

Purpose: Radiographic lung changes after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) vary widely between patients. Standardized descriptions of acute (≤6 months after treatment) and late (>6 months after treatment) benign lung changes have been proposed but the reliable application of these classification systems has not been demonstrated. Herein, we examine the interobserver reliability of classifying acute and late lung changes after SBRT. Methods and materials: A total of 280 follow-up computed tomography scans at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment were analyzed in 100 patients undergoing thoracic SBRT. Standardized descriptions of acute lung changes (3- and 6-month scans) include diffuse consolidation, patchy consolidation and ground glass opacity (GGO), diffuse GGO, patchy GGO, and no change. Late lung change classifications (12-month scans) include modified conventional pattern, mass-like pattern, scar-like pattern, and no change. Five physicians scored the images independently in a blinded fashion. Fleiss' kappa scores quantified the interobserver agreement. Results: The Kappa scores were 0.30 at 3 months, 0.20 at 6 months, and 0.25 at 12 months. The proportion of patients in each category at 3 and 6 months was as follows: Diffuse consolidation 11% and 21%; patchy consolidation and GGO 15% and 28%; diffuse GGO 10% and 11%; patchy GGO 15% and 15%; and no change 49% and 25%, respectively. The percentage of patients in each category at 12 months was as follows: Modified conventional 46%; mass-like 16%; scar-like 26%; and no change 12%. Uniform scoring between the observers occurred in 26, 8, and 14 cases at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: Interobserver reliability scores indicate a fair agreement to classify radiographic lung changes after SBRT. Qualitative descriptions are insufficient to categorize these findings because most patient scans do not fit clearly into a single classification. Categorization at 6 months may be the most difficult because late and acute lung changes can arise at that time

WeWhoCurie: An Initiative to Advocate for Those Underrepresented in Radiation Oncology

Purpose: An initiative to advocate for those underrepresented in radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: Inspired by the success of the #ILookLikeAnEngineer and #ILookLikeASurgeon campaigns, this initiative aimed to break down stereotypes in traditionally male-dominated fields. In honor of Marie Curie's birthday, on November 7, 2018, the Society for Women in Radiation Oncology launched a social media campaign called #WomenWhoCurie day. However, as the popularity of the social media campaign increased, it become evident that members of the wider radiation community, in particular women of color, nonbinary and transgender people did not feel supported by the #WomenWhoCurie movement. In November 2021, after consultation with diversity and inclusion leaders and members of other national radiation oncology organizations, Society for Women in Radiation Oncology launched #WeWhoCurie alongside the #WomenWhoCurie campaign for women and gender minorities in radiation oncology. Radiation oncologists, physicists, dosimetrist, therapists, nurses, and other professionals from around the world gathered and shared photos and social media posts throughout the day on multiple platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Results: In the year #WeWhoCurie, #WomenWhoCurie, #_______ WhoCurie campaign launched, we saw an increase in participation across the globe from 9 countries: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Spain, China, New Zealand, and Australia. There were over 720 tweets contributing to the campaign with over 2000 messages, representing 3,365,444 “potential impacts”, or the number of times someone saw the hashtag. Conclusions: Through this campaign we aim to celebrate the incredible women, gender minorities, and allies who are “Curie-ing” patients with cancer and conducting cutting edge research to improve cancer care across the globe. As an organization we believe adding our voices to the masses will foster a culture of inclusion for everyone. Afterall, what good is the practice of radiation oncology if all are not equally welcome